An analysis of the morally correct way to live

On the other, we are also generally loath to make moral judgments about other people. What if everyone did the action you are proposing? Categorising them and providing rules for when epistemically unjustified beliefs might be morally or prudentially justified is an important general exercise which I cannot explore here.

It might be countered that a person whose internal peace of mind is eaten away by such states is more to be pitied that judged. Conclusion The preceding discussion An analysis of the morally correct way to live undoubtedly raised as many questions as it has attempted to answer.

If Fred is reputed honest and he is honest, his reputation is true; it is false if he is dishonest; similarly if he is reputed dishonest and he is in fact dishonest true reputation or is in fact honest false reputation. Although it is quite true that everyone without exception does morally wrong things at many times in their lives, it is also the case that most people are good—or so I shall argue.

All action leads to some end. Through a thought experiment, Rawls developed a way of getting people to come up with universal principles of justice. We can know their judgments by their outward manifestations, just as we know other mental states such as hopes and fears.

So how can we be sure it ranks, in terms of what is bad for the individual, below having a bad but deserved reputation? Note that a bad person might not get a good reputation by false pretences: Thirdly, the application of morality to states of mind is hardly novel.

If we would wither at the self-application of our own standard of judgment, why should we apply it with equal rigour to our fellows?

Most moral philosophers have come to take it as axiomatic that when they evaluate human acts they are evaluating external, observable physical movements.

For example, if you can reasonably attribute a less bad motive say, greed rather than cruelty or a good motive instead of a bad one kindness rather than maliceyou should. The point is that even if rash judgment, which harms both charity and justice, is a form of immorality, sound moral principles cannot entail that we are all guilty of multiple serious wrongs pretty much all of the time, given human weakness and the all-too-familiar temptation to indulge in such judgment.

For charity is an obligation. Here is an area of practical ethics that receives little contemporary attention, yet it is as central to morality as judging the state of the weather is to the question of how one should dress. The same applies to any individual who has experienced a series of disappointments in life.

You can have all the interpersonal benefits of being good without the cost of actually being good. That creates a weak presumption of goodness in any particular case. Is it always wrong to treat people merely as a means to an end? I will also, quite plausibly apart from highly non-standard cases, call true reputations deserved and false reputations undeserved, and vice versa.

Selling your identity, however, is not the same as selling your reputation. I am not allowed to steal, and no one is allowed to steal for me; I am not obliged to go shopping every day, nor is anyone obliged to go shopping for me.

If Nancy does not care that a handful of her work colleagues know she is cheating on her husband with her boss, she cannot expect her colleagues to refrain from judging her behaviour assuming they disapprove, of course. It is one thing for us to remind ourselves of the singular importance of reputation and the need to preserve social harmony, but quite another to elevate rash judgment to the level of a taboo rivalling the many grosser forms of immorality with which we are daily confronted!

Moreover, if we cannot know the judgments others make with the same certainty with which we can know our own, then those principles will dictate even greater caution when judging the judgments of others.

If I am walking through a large city late at night and a stranger comes up to me asking for directions, I might avoid him on the ground that he may be—or even probably is —a mugger.

So the extra reasons for justifying the legal presumption of innocence are irrelevant, specifically the importance of the presumption in counteracting the power of the state it being much harder for an individual to prove their innocence than for the state to prove them guilty.

Usually we cannot make the required utilitarian calculation before acting. Note that this recommendation is not to be construed as an invitation to narcissism. Again, if you have a choice between judging someone guilty of doing something bad or something worse, consistently with the evidence, then you should judge the lesser offence.

Can you presume the object is a bingle?

Rashness is not merely about lack of evidence, but involves lack of charity and is to be avoided even in some cases where the evidence of bad character or action is epistemically sufficient for judgment. We should seek goodness for itself, as the final end of all our acts, but goodness is a complex thing with various constituents, some of which are good in themselves and others good as means to more ultimate ends.

Presumably, given that we pass judgment on others all the time yet generally deplore judgmentalism, most of us think that we can pass judgments without being judgmental cases of weakness or hypocrisy aside.

If there were a presumption that people were bad, we would need rules for judging them good. Must we always ignore good consequences? Of these cases I would echo fairly widespread views: We do not want to appear or even to be judgmental, but we also know that we do judge our fellows continuously, and believe this is often justified.

In all of these matters one must also consider the good done by damaging a reputation, however undeserved, versus the harm to the person whose reputation is damaged.A man can live ethically and morally without the guidance of religion because of the upbringing of his parents.

it is the individual's personality and upbringing which will lead a man to live an ethically and morally "correct" life, and not religion. He has commanded us a way of living that we cannot bypass. One can live a moral life to. Ethical Theories. STUDY.

Ethics really boils down to a cost-benefit analysis. One should only perform actions that promote societal happiness. The only way to make sure one acts in a morally good way is to look around to see what most other people are doing and act as they do.

In the USA its ok to eat beef, in India it is immoral. A claim is "morally correct" when it is the right way to think about things. Morally correct claims aren't always literally correct, and are sometimes not precise enough to even have a truth value.

permalink. Posts promoting or facilitating piracy in any way will be removed. Piracy is a permanent ban, no warnings.

(In Your Opinion) The Most Morally Correct Fallout 4 Ending? (killarney10mile.comt) submitted 1 year ago by Ithaquatic. For me, its either The Minutemen, or the Brotherhood Of Steel. "Morally correct" doesn't mean "accepting of. Is capital punishment morally correct? Word Count: ; Approx Pages: 2; Save Essay ; View my Saved Essays ; Instead of facing death criminals were able to live the rest of their lives in prison.

These prisoners are able to look back on their lives and repent. This option is thought to be the moral way. Since capital punishment has been.

Alerting someone who dropped their wallet on the street is generally regarded as proper conduct and morally correct. A life lived without morality, is a life of disrespect to others and to society. Which is the best way of living life? Is religion necessary to live a good standing moral life?